Cyclist.ie launched

Fnord

Statement issued by Cyclist.ie on behalf of Dublin Cycling Campaign, Cork Cycling Campaign, Galway Cycling Campaign, Limerick Cycling Campaign, Maynooth Cycling Campaign, Skerries Cycling Initiative and Waterford Walk Cycle Campaign. These Irish cycling lobby groups have combined to form a new umbrella body, "Cyclist.ie". Its main concerns are ensuring a dramatic improvement in road safety and traffic conditions for cyclists. It views the realisation of these aims as vital to facilitate a marked increase in the numbers of people choosing the bicycle as a means of daily transport.

DATE: 4 November 2008

CYCLING IN IRELAND: THE TIME TO CYCLE IS NOW!

The seven Irish cyclist advocacy groups have combined to form a new lobbying body called “Cyclist.ie” to raise the profile of cyclist issues and to campaign for action. Given rising transport costs, severe urban traffic congestion and a marked increase in the incidence of overweight and obese children, this is an ideal opportunity for Ireland to promote commuting and leisure cycling.

Most children live within 6 km of their school, a very manageable cycling distance for a healthy child. As a society we need to facilitate and encourage more children to cycle to school and to use their bicycles to socialise and explore their neighbourhoods.

With the 2006 census showing a mere 1.9% of adult commuters travelling by bicycle, cycling to work, school or college has become almost extinct. This is principally due to roads being cyclist-hostile due to (1) excessive traffic speeds and volumes, (2) badly designed and maintained cycling facilities, (3) proliferation of cyclist-hostile road infrastructure such as multi-lane one-way streets and multi-lane roundabouts, (4) poor cycle-parking provision and (5) poor driving standards, including close and dangerous overtaking.

In order for Ireland to meet its stringent Kyoto commitments, we urgently need to replace a large percentage of car journeys with cycling or walking. This applies particularly to journeys of under 6km. Such journeys can be accomplished relatively easily and quickly by bicycle in congested urban traffic. However, this modal shift can only happen if the roads are perceived to be safer, more pleasant places for newcomer cyclists and walkers.

Cyclist.ie does not seek the construction of additional cycle lanes and paths. It recognises that the mere painting of lines and rolling out of red tarmac treatments does not guarantee cyclists’ safety. Safety will come via globally revised road design standards, traffic law enforcement, and modifying drivers' and cyclists' behaviour in each other's presence.

It seeks safer roads through (1) measures to restrict inappropriate traffic speeds and volumes and the introduction of a 30 km/h urban speed limit, (2) improved driver instruction, training and testing regimes that include safe interaction with cyclists, particularly for goods vehicle drivers, (3) enhanced road traffic law enforcement and new traffic regulations such as a defined minimum overtaking distance (1.5m) when drivers pass cyclists.

Cyclist.ie has already presented a detailed National Cycling Policy submission to the Minister for Transport, Mr. Noel Dempsey, TD under his Sustainable Travel and Transport Policy Initiative. Today, Cyclist.ie launches that document as a comprehensive guide for those interested in cycling in the Irish context. Cyclist.ie looks forward to co-operating with government and local authorities in selecting and applying the proven measures that its research shows to be most relevant to promoting cycling in Ireland.

NOTES:

[Cyclist.ie is at http://www.cyclist.ie
The NCP submission to Department of Transport can be read at these URLs:
http://galwaycycling.org/files/publication_draft_191008_no_edits.pdf (2.67 MB)
http://seaview.mckillen.com/Cycling [It's a pdf file titled NCP-Submission-19-10-08]
http://www.cyclist.ie/documents/National%20Cycling%20Promotion%20Policy%20Position%20Document%20-%20October%202008.pdf

Key measures to promote cycling include:

* motorised traffic speed reduction
* traffic volume reduction
* driver instruction and testing regimes that include safe interaction with cyclists.
* traffic skills training for cyclists starting at school level
* comprehensive provision of secure cycle parking
* elimination of urban multi-lane one-way streets
* two-way access for cyclists to one-way streets
* elimination of cyclist-hostile road features such as slip roads and large roundabouts
* bicycle friendly adaptations to traffic signals
* adequate road surface drainage and maintenance
* creation of a “cyclist permeable” urban environment
* restrictions on HGV access to urban areas
* shared bus/cycle lanes of appropriate safe width
* where appropriate, cycle lanes/hard shoulders of adequate width (2m minimum)

Junior

errr nothing there to launch dude ? it's just a few links to other sites ?

flickerx

Great idea. Crap name. Cyclist.ie should be the name of the website yeah, but something like "Ireland Cyclists Union" as the umbrella organisation sounds much better. Just me 2c!

barrabus

Cyclist.ie] launched over the handlebars and not working .... as far as I can see

Fnord

It's the group that's being officially launched, rather than the website. I should probably have made that clear, since they have the same name. The website is presently just a holding page with links to the umbrella group members. The policy document is where the group's activity has mostly been invested so far.

Gavin

Well written statement. I would have thought there would be something about cyclist education?

edit- sorry, I see it there !

blorg

I think the name is fine, all very 2.0 and all that.

To be honest I would stick the above statement up as a holding page, it would be better than what you have now.

flickerx

Fnord wrote: »

It's the group that's being officially launched, rather than the website.

My point exactly.
Irish Cyclists Union.
with cyclist.ie as your website.

Bunnyhopper

Any specific position on the law regarding mandatory use of cycletracks? (I've had a quick read over the statement and can't spot it.)

Best of luck with it.

Gavin

It's in the policy document, one of the immediate goals, repealing the mandatory cycle lane use law.

fergalr

Look, excellent work putting something like this together, great to see people out actually doing something to try and help the cycling situation, rather than just complaining, etc...

It's the group that's being officially launched, rather than the website. I should probably have made that clear, since they have the same name.

But you guys really should not have launched a group called 'cyclist.ie' which has the same name as the website without the website being ready to launch too.
That's really not a good idea - the first thing everyone interested is going to do when they hear 'cyclist.ie' is go to the website, see it's not very good, and maybe dismiss the idea - instant loss of credibility/influence.
You only get to launch once, so if at all possible, maybe try get even a basic pretty website on there asap - especially if this announcement is going to appear in print media etc.

(This is just my .02, I'm no expert in these areas, and again, very well done for trying to sort things)

Fnord

The PR has been added to the website holding page.

In an ideal world the website would be fully laid out to coincide with the official group launch. But all of this is being done on a voluntary basis by people in different parts of the country with job commitments, family responsibilities and other demands on our time. If we were to wait for everything to be fully prepared and perfectly timed before we proceeded, it would never happen.

Thanks to everyone who has offered encouragement or helpful criticism. The policy document will be updated when the time is right and when circumstances allow, so any constructive feedback on its contents is welcome.

oobydooby

Hope this is successful, will help out if I can. One other point (I agree with the points above), will you have a discussion forum on the website? I'm fairly happy reading about all things bike related here, but it might be viable to discuss commuter-specific issues on your website. (Some of these issues seem to generate a lot of general interest)

fergalr

The policy document will be updated when the time is right and when circumstances allow, so any constructive feedback on its contents is welcome.

One of the suggestions that jumped out at me from the press release on the website, and the policy document, was the 30km/h speed limit.

It seeks safer roads through (1) measures to restrict inappropriate
traffic speeds and volumes and the introduction of a 30 km/h urban speed
limit,

It's got quite a prominent placing. Is it politically expedient to seek this as the first goal for safer roads? I ask, because this is surely a measure that will have an almost certainly perceived large negative impact on drivers, and hence may not bolster support for the campaign.
Like, I'd be very surprised if politicians were willing to back legislation (or local authorities introduce limits) which could so easily be attacked as being against the car owning majority - so is this really an achievable goal to be leading with? And I'm not asking the question rhetorically - I genuinely know very little about how these things go.

blorg

There have been suggestions that the other DCC (Dublin City Council) plan on a 30km/h default speed limit within the canals in any case, it's hardly radical looney stuff. Note this is for the city centre, the M50 is not going to be limited to 30km/h.

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

There have been suggestions that the other DCC (Dublin City Council) plan on a 30km/h default speed limit within the canals in any case, it's hardly radical looney stuff.

IMO (and I might be alone on this) a 30kph limit is nuts. That would mean cyclists would be limited to the same speed, which would make my bike commute slower and less fun. I really like the "intervals" aspect of cycling in fast moving traffic.

I also don't think it will make people suddenly take up cycling - many non-cyclists are scared of cars at any speed.

FWIW I also enjoy driving faster when conditions allow (such as late at night) and don't see speed and safety as mutually exclusive things.

blorg

The proposed limit is a default 30km/h for the city centre only, within the canals. It's about changing the _default_ from 50; you could still have certain major arterial routes designated faster. This would calm traffic in the centre and increase safety, for pedestrians as much if not more than cyclists.

Most cyclists will not be going faster than 30km/h most of the time and in any case technically speed limits only apply to mechanically propelled vehicles so you could in fact go faster if you wanted.

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

The proposed limit is a default 30km/h for the city centre only, within the canals. It's about changing the _default_ from 50; you could still have certain major arterial routes designated faster. This would calm traffic in the centre and increase safety, for pedestrians as much if not more than cyclists.

It's possibly unarguable that lowering speed limits tends to reduce the speed of collisions involving vehicles travelling within the limit, and that enforcing limits increases the rate of compliance with those limits.

I have not seen good evidence that either of these measures increases safety overall.

blorg

Lumen wrote: »

It's possibly unarguable that lowering speed limits tends to reduce the speed of collisions involving vehicles travelling within the limit, and that enforcing limits increases the rate of compliance with those limits.

I have not seen good evidence that either of these measures increases safety overall.

Graz saw a 20%* reduction in accidents, there is plenty of data out there if you just have a look.

Since the late 1980’s Graz (Austria) 33 has implemented an integrated transport plan to make it a city of “gentlemobility” centred around safety, environmental efficiency and increasing the attractiveness of public spaces. In1992, a city-wide 30km/h speed limit was introduced, which contributed to a 20% reduction in accidents, as wellas significant reductions in emissions of air pollutants and noise.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2004/com2004_0060en01.pdf

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

Graz saw a 20%* reduction in accidents, there is plenty of data out there if you just have a look.

I see correlation but no causation. At the same time they improved cycle lanes, pavements, reduced traffic volumes and increased pedestrianisation. These are all good things for safety.

The crux of my disbelief comes from my own experience - that I don't feel safer when driving more slowly, nor do I feel safer cycling around slower cars. I'd rather the focus was on civil engineering approaches, which are more expensive and therefore less politically appealing.

I'm honestly not being deliberately antagonistic and have no axe to grind, but it seems that these sort of studies are often pushed by anti-car lobby groups whose motives are less than scientific.

blorg

I presume you disagree with the oft-quoted statistic that a pedestrian stands a 10% chance of being killed hit by a car at 30km/h but a 50% chance of being killed hit by a car at 50km/h (and 90% at 60km/h)?

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

I presume you disagree with the oft-quoted statistic that a pedestrian stands a 10% chance of being killed hit by a car at 30km/h but a 50% chance of being killed hit by a car at 50km/h?

No, I agree with that one.

I don't agree with the "obvious" extrapolation that arbitrary speed limits reduce deaths and serious injuries.

Accidents are caused by human error, and as such have complicated psychological causes. Driving is afflicted with what Taleb would call "negative lumpy outcomes", and as such you can't just fiddle with a variable and expect a predictable response.

Much of the justification for speed cameras comes from "reversion to the mean" statistical nonsense combined with blind assertion.

Civilian_Target

Who, exactly, do you think will obey this 30kmph speed limit anyway, it's virtually unenforcable!

While I respect what these cycling groups are trying to do... maybe they need to do a little less talking and a little more action, having a press release to launch an copy of the press release at cyclist.ie is possibly the most crazy thing I've ever seen! Apart from press releases I have yet to see something practical. Learn a bit from the LCC, things like:

* Maps of city cycle routes, graded by safety. With a copy of map my ride, you can even get people to contribute them

* Raising public awareness of visibility at night. Many cyclists seem unaware that without good lights, you're practically invisible at night. Lights are better than a helmet, reflectors are better than nothing and availible free from any Gardai station

* Raising public awareness of how to cycle safely, basic tips like "Never overtake on the left" and "Don't pass HGVs at junctions, even if they're stopped" will save lives

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of the big things too, but basic practical steps show you're serious and help everyone now. The LCC does all of these and has clout with the London authorities. The DCC / cyclist.ie, as I see it, does none of these, and has no clout.

Rant out.

Fnord

Lumen wrote: »

I don't feel safer when driving more slowly

I would have thought that most people feel safer when driving more slowly, all other factors being equal.

Lumen wrote: »

Accidents are caused by human error, and as such have complicated psychological causes.

Accidents are caused by a lot more than human error. For example: weather, mechanical failure, bad luck, speed...

The Galway City Community Forum adopted this position some years ago.

For the curious:
http://www.20splentyforus.co.uk/
http://www.slower-speeds.org.uk/
http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/info/tforum/twentysafe

Fnord

Civilian_Target wrote: »

While I respect what these cycling groups are trying to do... maybe they need to do a little less talking and a little more action, having a press release to launch an copy of the press release at cyclist.ie is possibly the most crazy thing I've ever seen! Apart from press releases I have yet to see something practical. Learn a bit from the LCC, things like:

* Maps of city cycle routes, graded by safety. With a copy of map my ride, you can even get people to contribute them

* Raising public awareness of visibility at night. Many cyclists seem unaware that without good lights, you're practically invisible at night. Lights are better than a helmet, reflectors are better than nothing and availible free from any Gardai station

* Raising public awareness of how to cycle safely, basic tips like "Never overtake on the left" and "Don't pass HGVs at junctions, even if they're stopped" will save lives

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of the big things too, but basic practical steps show you're serious and help everyone now. The LCC does all of these and has clout with the London authorities. The DCC / cyclist.ie, as I see it, does none of these, and has no clout.

Rant out.

The umbrella group Cyclist.ie comprises the local groups, which carry out these actions and many more, to varying degrees and as resources allow. A little less ranting and a little more action (well, visiting websites, or enjoying a few moments' consideration) might have revealed this.

Goodnight all, and thanks for the input.

Lumen

Fnord wrote: »

I would have thought that most people feel safer when driving more slowly, all other factors being equal.

Accidents are caused by a lot more than human error. For example: weather, mechanical failure, bad luck, speed...

Accidents are almost never caused by bad luck, and almost always caused by human error of some sort (mechanical failure is usually due to poor maintenance, which is an error). For a trained police driver (the most skilled drivers on the road) all accidents are considered inexcusable lapses of judgement.

Speed does not cause accidents, but inappropriate speed can both cause accidents and make the consequences worse. Inappropriate speed can be above or below the posted limit, depending on conditions. That's precisely why enforcement of arbitrary limits makes little sense.

Progress and general reductions in traffic speed are mutually exclusive, in more ways than one. I don't get on a bike to go slowly, neither do I when I get into a car.

barrabus

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1106/1225893547136.html

zzzzzzzz

Fnord wrote: »

I would have thought that most people feel safer when driving more slowly, all other factors being equal.

Actually - I was just thinking about this the other day. I find that I am generally more focused on driving at higher speeds.

At a lower speed (i.e. in traffic or whatever) my mind will wander a lot more than when I'm doing 120 on the motorway or even 80/100 on the dual carriage way. I will pay a lot more attention to the radio and change the channel more frequently, etc.

Tackleberry

Cyclist.ie = moany aul b astards, stop crashing yer bikes, stop getting knocked down, stop complaining about a million and one things and just enjoy yer bike

DBCyc

Lumen wrote: »

I don't agree with the "obvious" extrapolation that arbitrary speed limits reduce deaths and serious injuries.

Driving at higher speeds reduces the time in which the driver can perceive a potential hazard and then react by braking, swerving etc. Also the higher the speed, the higher the braking distance required to stop.

Therefore reducing the speed of vehicles on the roads results in less accidents as drivers have more time to react to hazards and avoid them.

Lumen wrote: »

Accidents are almost never caused by bad luck, and almost always caused by human error of some sort

Yes, so with lower speeds drivers have more time to react to their error or the errors of other road users and avoid an accident.

niceonetom

Tackleberry wrote: »

Cyclist.ie = moany aul b astards, stop crashing yer bikes, stop getting knocked down, stop complaining about a million and one things and just enjoy yer bike

you're complaining about complaining? well done.

Raam

niceonetom wrote: »

you're complaining about complaining? well done.

Didn't we have a case of this before with Tackleberry? :pac:

Civilian_Target

Fnord wrote: »

The umbrella group Cyclist.ie comprises the local groups, which carry out these actions and many more, to varying degrees and as resources allow. A little less ranting and a little more action (well, visiting websites, or enjoying a few moments' consideration) might have revealed this.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Visit the DCC website. I see no helpful information on How to Cycle Safely in Dublin or something similar on the homepage or any direct link. It took me 4 clicks to find it, and I'm a cyclist and computer programmer.

I mean this as constructive criticism. You sound like you're involved on the campaign. Put it on the front page, How To Cycle Safely. Make it big. It's practical and free. Once people feel safe on their bikes, they're likely to cycle more and be interested in your campaign.

Lumen

DBCyc wrote: »

Driving at higher speeds reduces the time in which the driver can perceive a potential hazard and then react by braking, swerving etc. Also the higher the speed, the higher the braking distance required to stop.

Therefore reducing the speed of vehicles on the roads results in less accidents as drivers have more time to react to hazards and avoid them.

Everything you say is obviously true, provided that the driver maintains the same level of concentration and awareness at the lower speed.

This doesn't happen.

When you apply arbitrary speed limits (i.e. which have no relation to the actual safe speed you can attain on a given stretch of road in a given set of conditions) you will find that most people drive at (or slightly over) the limit. This will either be too slow or too fast for the prevailing conditions, and consequently it makes for a less safe driving environment, particularly for cyclists whose lives depend on drivers paying above average levels of attention.

How many drivers understand the extremely basic concept of "vanishing point technique" for assessing the safe speed to approach a bend? Almost none. Do you? How many copies of Roadcraft are read outside of police forces?

People are given a strict set of rules (don't drink and drive, stick to the posted limit) and suspend their mental faculties as long as they are adhering to those rules. Consequently, lives are lost.

The simplistic notion that "speed kills" is usually pedalled by people with no clue about safe driving.

oobydooby

I disagree with Lumen. An analogous argument could be made for drink driving and people of my parents' generation might go along with it: A few pints, no harm. You drive more carefully...

The point about excellent drivers (rally drivers, policemen, ambulance or fire brigade, bus/HGV drivers) is valid. Michael Schumacher flying down a busy street is arguably less of a risk than a nervous and inexperienced teenager obeying the limits or a tired person:mad::mad: (see triathlete story in newspapers last week).

However the law on public roads does and should apply to all road users. It doesn't mean that drivers suspend their critical faculties but you can't really legislate for that. The simple argument is that urban areas have road space shared with other road users (including unpredictable children and cyclists). A collision of a motor vehicle with a vulnerable road user is less likely to be seriously injurious or fatal if the speed of collision is lower. Hence a low limit.

The positive side effect of this would be (and this should be done before the superslow limits are introduced) to have good high-speed arterial routes through and around the city for motor traffic. This would divert cars from using suburbs as shortcuts and encourage them to make their way to the faster roads and leave the smaller roads calmer and more pleasant for cars, cyclists and pedestrians.

Turbulent Bill

Civilian_Target wrote: »

Sorry, I don't buy it. Visit the DCC website. I see no helpful information on How to Cycle Safely in Dublin or something similar on the homepage or any direct link. It took me 4 clicks to find it, and I'm a cyclist and computer programmer.

I mean this as constructive criticism. You sound like you're involved on the campaign. Put it on the front page, How To Cycle Safely. Make it big. It's practical and free. Once people feel safe on their bikes, they're likely to cycle more and be interested in your campaign.

Nail on head. Irish cities are car-centric, and given the slow rollout of public transport they're likely to remain that way for a long time. I applaud Cyclist.ie for promoting cycling, but I think the focus should be on enabling new and existing cyclists to use the roads as they stand, rather than constantly fighting for new provisions.

LCC have an advice section on their website (http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?Pageid=111) which you could use as a template (or just link to it). For something more meaty you could recommend 'Cyclecraft' by John Franklin as a good guide to the practicalities of cycling in the city. Well-advised beginners are less likely to be scared off by traffic or make lethal mistakes, and will probably stick with it.

Just my 2c.

Fnord

Civilian_Target wrote: »

Sorry, I don't buy it. Visit the DCC website. I see no helpful information on How to Cycle Safely in Dublin or something similar on the homepage or any direct link. It took me 4 clicks to find it, and I'm a cyclist and computer programmer.

I mean this as constructive criticism. You sound like you're involved on the campaign. Put it on the front page, How To Cycle Safely. Make it big. It's practical and free. Once people feel safe on their bikes, they're likely to cycle more and be interested in your campaign.

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

I applaud Cyclist.ie for promoting cycling, but I think the focus should be on enabling new and existing cyclists to use the roads as they stand, rather than constantly fighting for new provisions.

LCC have an advice section on their website (http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?Pageid=111) which you could use as a template (or just link to it). For something more meaty you could recommend 'Cyclecraft' by John Franklin as a good guide to the practicalities of cycling in the city.

I'm not involved in the DCC, but I'm sure someone in the group will read this discussion. Anyone with useful suggestions could also consider contacting them or any other campaign group.

Calling for new provisions is only part of what's being done. I know a lot of people who don't cycle because they're afraid of traffic, yet the best thing most people can do to make the roads safer for cycling is simply to cycle on the roads, so there's a Catch-22 at play. To overcome this there needs to be a broad, long-term and integrated approach to help foster Ireland's cycling culture. Hence Cyclist.ie, and to kick things off, its substantial and ambitious consensus policy paper. It's early days for the collective, but its member groups have been involved and continue to be involved in all sorts of other activities that promote cycling and safety on the roads.

The Galway Cycling Campaign puts a lot of emphasis on safety, something to which even a cursory look around its website will attest. (I am not in a position to detail the activities of other campaign groups.) Last year the Galway group had a joint initiative with the Gardai to encourage visibility at night, by handing out reflective gear and telling cyclists about the legal requirement for lights. We hope to do it again. We've put out press releases on the same subject and on other road safety matters, such as roadpath cycling. Prominent on the GCC website front page is a link to "Information Sheets", which comprise an archive of traffic analysis and advice. We also use the forum for tips and discussion, but it's fairly quiet in there. We've been planning cycling maps for the city, but this takes time. We've put up signs all over the city encouraging cycling and safe road use. We have a set of big new signs due to be installed around the county.

During Mobility Week last month the group held two seminars on traffic skills for cyclists. We ran free bike maintenance workshops in the city centre and the university. We handed out lights and road safety leaflets. Those leaflets, by the way, come in three forms and are adapted with permission from John Franklin's Cyclecraft. We've handed out thousands of the leaflets in recent years - from temporary stalls, colleges, libraries, bike shops and other public locations. John Franklin himself was in town for Mobility Week to (among other things) give a talk at the City Library's launch of the new edition of Cyclecraft. (It's an excellent book; I lent my copy to my brother last week.)

Just because someone doesn't know that these things are being done, it doesn't mean that they are not being done. They are being done (to varying degrees, as I've written), generally by a small number of people with constraints on their time like everyone else. Ideally we would spend even more time on these sorts of activities. They're enjoyable and effective. But they can only achieve so much. When road designs are proposed that are manifestly dangerous to cyclists and other vulnerable road users, we get involved. These dangerous designs and redevelopments are frequent, so we spend a regrettable amount of our energy fire-fighting, explaining best practice to politicians, engineers, officials, etc., dispelling myths about basic road safety issues, explaining and dispelling again the following month, then the following year and five years later, and so on. This can be akin to banging one's head repeatedly off a brick wall, but there are indications that things are changing, however slowly. Having a national voice will help.

Again, thanks for the constructive criticism. As for the scorn, it's like rain off a Galway cyclist's back...

Lumen

Fnord wrote: »

Lots of extremely good stuff

That's a great collection of carrots, but where's the stick?

Fnord

Lumen wrote: »

That's a great collection of carrots, but where's the stick?

Strapped to the handlebars, for emergency use only.

Turbulent Bill

Fnord wrote: »

Just because someone doesn't know that these things are being done, it doesn't mean that they are not being done. They are being done (to varying degrees, as I've written), generally by a small number of people with constraints on their time like everyone else. Ideally we would spend even more time on these sorts of activities. They're enjoyable and effective. But they can only achieve so much. When road designs are proposed that are manifestly dangerous to cyclists and other vulnerable road users, we get involved. These dangerous designs and redevelopments are frequent, so we spend a regrettable amount of our energy fire-fighting, explaining best practice to politicians, engineers, officials, etc., dispelling myths about basic road safety issues, explaining and dispelling again the following month, then the following year and five years later, and so on. This can be akin to banging one's head repeatedly off a brick wall, but there are indications that things are changing, however slowly. Having a national voice will help.

Thanks for the details Fnord, but to my mind this shows that the campaign's priorities are wrong. There will always be poor road designs because cyclists are a minority concern - this is highly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Rather than focussing on the losing battle of fixing poor infrastructure, concentrating on teaching roadcraft would allow cyclists to integrate with traffic and evaluate conditions as they occur. You essentially empower cyclists to make the correct decisions. Knowledge leads to confidence, increased participation and more national recognition. The GCC seems to have all the educational resources in place, it's just a matter of putting them front and centre.

I'm thinking of the analogy of teaching a man to fish rather than just giving him one.

blorg

I think Fnord is very reasonable in his responses here.

We have to remember here that all these campaigns are voluntary groups of people doing this work unpaid in their spare time. Good for them. Also note if you have any spare time yourself I am sure they would welcome you to get involved, discuss the issues, etc. I appreciate that someone is taking the time to campaign on behalf of cyclists and if you disagree with what they are doing (or indeed if you agree!) then get involved yourself.

Civilian_Target

I think Fnord is very reasonable in his responses here.

Hear hear. And the new site looks pretty. Still took me way too long to get to those Information Sheets, and my mother would never find them

And when I found them, they're not so useful.

Here's what I have, but I think you can improve on it http://www.civiliantarget.net/cycle/tips.html (particularly the colour scheme )

Actually, I believe even that is too long, maybe half the length with better highlighting, like this:

# Be visible! If you can't be seen, you will be hit by other vehicles.
If cycling at night, make sure you have a rear light and a front one too.
Relective bands are free at any Garda station.
A reflective jacket is cheap and better.
If cycling during the day - just make sure that you don't wear all grey/black clothes.
# Stay clear of Heavy vehicles, particularly HGVs.
Busses often have to share lanes with cyclists and generally have a resonably safe (although often inconsiderate) attitude to cyclists.
Large trucks are unused to cyclists and this makes them very dangerous. If you see a HGV at a junction - stay away from it until it has finished turning.
# Take care at junctions, particularly roundabouts.
If in doubt at a roundabout, cycle in the centre of the lane to deter motorists from trying crazy overtaking.
If continuing straight ahead at a junction where left turning is permitted, ensure that you are not between the kerb and any potential left-turning vehicles. In this case stay in the centre of the lane as you appoach the junction.
# As a rule of thumb, you should cycle in the cycle lane unless there is either an obvious reason not to.
# Obey traffic lights unless you know better. You're probably liable for any damage that happens to you if you break a red light.

Bunnyhopper

Verb wrote: »

It's in the policy document, one of the immediate goals, repealing the mandatory cycle lane use law.

Hurrah. (And thanks, Verb - I'm only now getting time to have a look at the full policy document, which, by the way, is very impressive.)

I like the fact that there's attention to the problem of secure parking and storage. I know I'd cycle more often and to more places if I could be reasonably confident that the bike would be still all there and not in jumped-upon-by-vandals bits when I got back to it.

One thing I might give some more prominence to is the removal of VAT from safety equipment (helmets, lights and reflective belts, bibs, etc.). I see that you have the removal of VAT from all cycles and related equipment as a suggested fiscal incentive, but the safety equipment might be a useful (and relatively easy to argue) place to start.

You might even be able to get the motorcycling community to join in a combined assault on the powers that be (although getting them to take tax off anything these days seems to require at least 12,000 people on Kildare Street). The cycle to work scheme is some suggestion that they might be amenable to the idea, however.

RainyDay

Just to let you know that Google Reader doesn't like the cyclist.ie RSS feed;



Danger: Malware Ahead!
Google Chrome has blocked access to this page on www.google.com.
Content from www.cyclist.ie, a known malware distributor, has been inserted into this web page. Visiting this page now is very likely to infect your computer with malware.
Malware is malicious software that causes things like identity theft, financial loss and permanent file deletion. Learn more

galwaycyclist

RainyDay wrote: »

Just to let you know that Google Reader doesn't like the cyclist.ie RSS feed;



Danger: Malware Ahead!
Google Chrome has blocked access to this page on www.google.com.
Content from www.cyclist.ie, a known malware distributor, has been inserted into this web page. Visiting this page now is very likely to infect your computer with malware.
Malware is malicious software that causes things like identity theft, financial loss and permanent file deletion. Learn more

Ta for heads up l'll let webmaster know - actually he's a boardsie will hopefully see.this anyway

miju

It really doesnt like it, lots of malware on the site:

http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?client=Firefox&hl=en-US&site=http://cyclist.ie/

ciotog

Thanks for that folks. I've checked the pages and issues that Google lists. One example is

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://argoauto.net/tmp/
index-bkp.php">

being served via injection. I'm not seeing this (or the domains listed in the sources) in the content or in the database. I'm querying both the DB and using an exploit scanner. I've submitted the site for Google's review and will act if anything comes back.

miju

Had a similar attack happen on me before. Register on Google Webmaster tools it will help you find the pages infected and temp remove them Google (this fixes the Google warning prob)

Then download your entire site thats sitting on your server and use something like Dreamweaver to search all files in all folders for the URLs.

Usually the file sits in one of the folders that has public read / write permissions like the /cache/ folder

ciotog

miju wrote: »

Had a similar attack happen on me before. Register on Google Webmaster tools it will help you find the pages infected and temp remove them Google (this fixes the Google warning prob)

Then download your entire site thats sitting on your server and use something like Dreamweaver to search all files in all folders for the URLs.

Usually the file sits in one of the folders that has public read / write permissions like the /cache/ folder

I'd been on Google's Webmaster Tools and the info wasn't actually that useful. http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/cyclist.ie provided the answer (now it just shows that Google have blacklisted us) which was that the main index page (which scares me plenty, obviously) had a javascript prepended to the top of the file (identified as http://labs.sucuri.net/db/malware/malware-entry-mwanomalysp8). Wordpress, plugins and themes are all up to date and file/directory permissions all follow the recommendations on the Wordpress Codex so I'm waiting to get time to go through the logs and figure out what happened.

miju

The guide you are specifically looking for on what to do is here.

Even though all the file/directory permissions are set to recommended does not mean that they are not compromised.

These are pain in the ass attacks to clean up. It took me guts of 3 weeks to fully deal with mine.